Lord Skelmersdale: Was it this Government who introduced this particular policy?

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that tour de force. This group is an extraordinary collection of different aspects such as research trusts and professional privilege. He even shed light on some opaque amendments to opaque parts of the Bill in dealing with Amendments 86A, 86B and 86C. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was manful in his description of what his amendments were designed to do. I lost the plot fairly early on.
I thank the Minister particularly for his approach to the research aspect. However, we are back again to the recycles. I would be grateful if he could give us chapter and verse on which recycles he is relying on. He said that without the provisions of the Bill that we find unsatisfactory, research would be crippled. There is a view that he is relying on some fair stretching of the correct interpretation of the words “scientific” and “historical”, especially if it is to cover the kinds of things that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been talking about. Many others are concerned about other forms of research, such as cyber research. There are so many other aspects. TechUK does not take up cudgels unless it is convinced that there is an underlying problem. This brings us back, again, to the question of recycles not being part of the Bill—

Lord Clement-Jones: I agree with that. Again we are relying on the interpretation in whichever recycle the Minister has in his briefing. It would be useful to have a letter from him on that score and a description of how it is going to be binding. How is that interpretation which he is praying in aid in the recycles going to be binding in future on our courts? The recycles are not part of the Bill. We probably talked about this on the first day.

Lord Ashton of Hyde: This was included in the letter I was sent today. I am afraid the noble Lord has not got it. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, helpfully withdrew his amendment before I was able to say anything the other night but the EU withdrawal Bill will convert the full text of direct EU instruments into UK law. This includes recycles, which will retain their status as an interpretive aid.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: Perhaps I may pursue this for a second. It is late in the evening and I am not moving fast enough in my brain, but the recycles have been discussed time and again and it is great that we are now getting a narrow understanding of where they go. I thought we were transposing the GDPR, after 20 May and after Brexit, through Schedule 6. However, Schedule 6 does not mention the recycles, so if the Minister can explain how this magic translation will happen I will be very grateful.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: I knew I was slow. We are moving to applied GDPR; that is correct. The applied GDPR, as I read it in the book—that great wonderful dossier that I have forgotten to table; I am sure the box can supply it when we need it—does not contain the recycles.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, just to heap Pelion on Ossa, I assume that until 29 March the recycles are not part of UK law.

Lord Ashton of Hyde: They will be part of UK law, because the withdrawal Bill will convert the full text into UK law. There will of course be a difference between the recycles and the articles; it will be like a statutory instrument, where the Explanatory Memorandum is part of the text of the instrument.

Lord Pannick: May I add to this fascinating debate? Does this not illustrate one of the problems of the withdrawal Bill—that in many areas, of which this is one, there will be two potentially conflicting sources of English law? There will be this Act, on data protection, and the direct implementation through the EU withdrawal Bill on the same subject. The two may conflict because this Act will not contain the recycles.